OANN Tried to Use a Restraining Order to Silence a Social Media Activist. We Filed an Anti-SLAPP Motion.
Herring Networks, Inc.—the company behind One America News Network—filed in San Diego Superior Court a workplace violence restraining order petition against Chelsea Goss, a social media content creator whose political commentary reaches 40 to 50 million views per month. What did Goss do? She made videos criticizing OANN for hiring Matt Gaetz.
In December 2024, OANN hired Gaetz as a primetime anchor just two weeks before the House Ethics Committee’s anticipated release of a bipartisan report finding "substantial evidence" that Gaetz committed statutory rape of a 17-year-old girl when he was 35 years old and a sitting member of Congress. The Committee also found evidence of prostitution, illicit drug use, and obstruction. OANN's own reporting had acknowledged the allegations weeks before announcing the hire—but its press release celebrating Gaetz as a "powerhouse" omitted them entirely.
Goss, who uses her platform to advocate for victims of sexual assault by powerful men, began making satirical content about OANN's decision to employ Gaetz. She visited the area outside the OANN building—in August 2025 and in February 2026—filming content in which she called Gaetz a "pedophile" and asked pointed questions about OANN's hiring decision. Both times, she left quickly when asked to leave.
In response to Goss’s social media posts, OANN asked the court to order Goss to stop posting on social media about OANN or any of its employees—including Gaetz—and to delete all prior posts about them. In other words, OANN asked a court to impose a blanket ban on a citizen's political speech about a nationally known conservative news company and the public scandals surrounding it.
We filed a Special Motion to Strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute (Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16), arguing:
The petition targets protected speech. The core of OANN's complaint is Goss's social media commentary—political speech on matters of obvious public concern. OANN's own brief admits that "the primary medium of Goss' harassment is through social media" and complains she is "aligned with far-left politics and ideology."
OANN can't show a probability of prevailing. Almost none of the social media posts OANN complains about mention Charles Herring at all. The one post with violent imagery—Goss venting about MAGA on the day federal agents killed Alex Pretti—was about MAGA generally, not at Herring or any OANN employee. She didn't even know who Herring was when she made it. Strip away the attacks on constitutionally protected speech, and OANN's case reduces to two brief parking lot visits where Goss left when asked. No violence, no threats, no physical contact.
The speech restrictions OANN seeks are unconstitutional. Ordering someone not to post on social media about a nationally known conservative news company is a prior restraint—"the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights." California's own workplace violence statute expressly prohibits courts from restraining "speech or other activities that are constitutionally protected." As the Supreme Court held in Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, "so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability." So too here.
If we win, attorney's fees are mandatory. California's anti-SLAPP statute requires a fee award to the prevailing defendant. The statute exists precisely to deter what OANN is doing here: using legal process to chill the exercise of free speech.
This case is about whether a powerful media company can weaponize California's court system to silence a critic. We don't think it can.
See our full anti-SLAPP motion here.
(and supporting documents here.)
See the previously filed case documents here.